Rolleiflex TLR

I always look at the meter reading and then it's me saying "no I don't think so" I took a meter out with my Rollei and used it for two shots and just put it in my pocket and never used it for the rest of the roll,I leave them at home they just get in the way of the flow.

The 2,8 Rolleis are only better than the slower ones if you need to shoot at 2,8. The 3,5 isn't even a full stop slower. My 3,5F with a six element Planar is my sharpest Rollei, but my current favourite is a pre-war Automat because it's so light (and sharp too).

Sirius Glass said:

Rolleiflexes have a bling factor that Hasselblad does not have: You need to carry three cameras around your neck if you want to shoot normal, wide, telephoto photographs.

Click to expand...

I've carried three Rolleiflexes around my neck on a day-trip to the mountains. Two 3,5 with different films, plus a Tele-Rollei and a tripod in its bag. That was twenty five years ago, and I'm not doing it again.

Ian Grant said:

No the E2's are not the same as F's and some E2/E3 cameras came with meters.

Click to expand...

Correct. The E2 is an E with removable hood. The 3,5 E3 has the bigger shutter, same as the F, and six element Planar/Xenotar. They both can use the E style of meter and have the EVS system. The F could be special ordered without a meter, but there aren't many of them out there.

etn said:

Sirius, have you already walked with a 500 and an SWC around your neck? (joking)

Click to expand...

Actually when I carry both one is around my neck and the other is in a backpack which is either on my back or in the car.

More likely I will carry the CX 503 with one lens, and a lens or two in the backpack [on or off].

Ian Grant said:

No the E2's are not the same as F's and some E2/E3 cameras came with meters.

Ian

Click to expand...

Just to add to the confusion!

Rolleiflex must be the most confusing camera out there when it comes to comparing models.

Alan Gales said:

Just to add to the confusion!

Rolleiflex must be the most confusing camera out there when it comes to comparing models.

Click to expand...

Graflex and Graphic were much worse.

Sirius Glass said:

Graflex and Graphic were much worse.

Click to expand...

Ok. I'm less familiar with them.

I did own a Crown Graphic for a bit. Excellent camera if you don't need much in the movement department! I had the 135mm Schneider and added a Caltar 210mm f/6.8 lens which could also fold up in the camera. Great combination for that camera. I've also played with a Speed Graphic and a Super Graphic.

Ian Grant said:

I have a couple of Rolleiflex cameras an E2 f3.5 Xenotar and an Automat with an Opton Tessar, never found f3.5 to be an issue, I also have a Rolleicord to restore and an MPP Microcord (a Cord clone but much better better built) and the Ross Xpres lens is superb, extremely sharp at all apertures.

In the past I've owned Mamiya TLRs which I used for work, really nice, great lenses, but heavy, I much prefer the Rollei's (inc Microcord) or a Yashicamat 124 I leave/keep in Turkey.

Ian

Click to expand...

My "Rollei" product is a Rolleicord IV with an f3.5 lens. What f stop do I use when shooting, why f8 or higher, of course. My Hasselblad's normal lens comes with an f2.8 lens. What f stop do I use when shooting, why f8 or higher, of course. If the Hasselblad lens had a maximum aperture setting of f3,5, why I would have bought one of those. So much for MY NEED for f2.8, f:1.5, etc. lenses and I do wonder about everyone else..........Regards!

Sirius Glass said:

Actually when I carry both one is around my neck and the other is in a backpack which is either on my back or in the car.

More likely I will carry the CX 503 with one lens, and a lens or two in the backpack [on or off].

Click to expand...

+1
I like to do the same. But I also like the simplicity of one camera/one lens, and often take the SWC alone, or the Rolleiflex for that matter.

JPD said:

I've carried three Rolleiflexes around my neck on a day-trip to the mountains. Two 3,5 with different films, plus a Tele-Rollei and a tripod in its bag. That was twenty five years ago, and I'm not doing it again.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the reason why I decided against buying a second Rollei, and favored a Hasselblad. You get a complete Hassy kit for the price of one single tele or wide Rollei. But I still use the Rollei quite a bit. I *love* the square format!

oldtimermetoo said:

My "Rollei" product is a Rolleicord IV with an f3.5 lens. What f stop do I use when shooting, why f8 or higher, of course. My Hasselblad's normal lens comes with an f2.8 lens. What f stop do I use when shooting, why f8 or higher, of course. If the Hasselblad lens had a maximum aperture setting of f3,5, why I would have bought one of those. So much for MY NEED for f2.8, f:1.5, etc. lenses and I do wonder about everyone else..........Regards!

Click to expand...

There's other reasons for a faster aperture with an SLR (like a Hasselblad) because they make focussing much easier. With a TLR manufacturers can use a fast viewing lens. There are times when I shoot at or close to full aperture with a 35mm camera or my TLRs, I was given my first Rolleiflex the E2 f3,5 Xenotar many years ago, if I was replacing it I would probably get one with an f2.8 lens for those odd ocassions where I'd shoot hand held wide open.

Ian

Also: Bokeh (hey, it does matter for many and a f2-2.8 in MF is fast, I do think it is a reason why 2.8 Flexes are very appreciated lately)

Ian Grant said:

There's other reasons for a faster aperture with an SLR (like a Hasselblad) because they make focussing much easier. With a TLR manufacturers can use a fast viewing lens. There are times when I shoot at or close to full aperture with a 35mm camera or my TLRs, I was given my first Rolleiflex the E2 f3,5 Xenotar many years ago, if I was replacing it I would probably get one with an f2.8 lens for those odd ocassions where I'd shoot hand held wide open.

Ian

Click to expand...

Indeed it does depend of the usage. For one, I have a 3.5 and sometimes a 2.8 (2/3 of a stop faster?) would be appreciated under available light. Otherwise, with tripod long exposures or ample daylight, running at f8 and be there is rather usual and wide open is not so doable with the limited 1/500 leaf shutters and/or without ND filters.

A worthy note is that back then (I am born in the 90s anyways), ASA 100 film was fast and 400 was very fast. AS for the note of another poster mentioning TLRs as objects of a bygone era... That time was the beginning of the jet age, computers were giant, Stereo age was unfolding, Color TV might not have been yet there as mainstream; and a long etc of technological differences.
Still, the reputed lenses on Rolleiflexes do hold a very high standard and are still cream of the crop. Physics do not help in minutiarization of them however.

Also, apologies for my previous post in oversimplifying information as in E2 = F. There were differences but I just condensed it into them being rather contemporary.

BTW Ian, being given a Rolleiflex of any kind is something very nice to be had. Nowadays they have been reaprecciating and I doubt we're seeing the bottom of barrel pricing of the last decade for some cult cameras. Too bad I didn't have the money for a Rollei back then.

I've owned a Rolleiflex 3.5E2 since 1966. Also two Rolleiflex Ts which I bought in the 1990s. I also recently acquired an as new 2.8E2. So Rolleis are in my blood, it seems.

There is a noticeable difference in weight and size between the 3.5s and the 2.8s, but they are not impossibly heavy or bulky. Using a 2.8 just takes a bit of mental adjustment. Accessories are (usually) somewhat cheaper for the 3.5 than the 2.8. Cheapest of all are the bayonet I accessories for the Ts, as this was the standard size for Rolleis from the 1930s and there are tonnes of bits available on the used market for this model.

To repeat myself from previous posts, the T allows you to shoot 16 exposures with an accessory slip-in '16' kit. The Rolleicords from model IV upwards also allows 16 and 24 with two kids (the 16 kit for the 'cord is different from that for the T). All Rolleis can also be adapted to shoot 35mm film.

True, the Rollei lacks interchangeable lenses, so what? I've shot with Mamiya TLRs, and at my age I wouldn't want to have to carry one on a hilll trek, they are like bricks. They give lovely results, tho. Not quite as good as the Rolleis, I reckon, but then with four 'flexes in my camera cabinet at home, I would say this, wouldn't I?

RolleiflexIBILITY, or what?

It is widely held that the Es were an early version of the later Fs (there was an earlier F, without the removable waist level finder, dating back to the mid 1950s). I've read and read and read some more about the Rolleis but cannot find any evidence to support this. What I do know, is that results from my 3.5E2 and my newly acquired 2.8E2 are virtually the same. I THINK the 2.8 gives me slightly sharper images, but as I have yet to put this to the test and enlarge shots of the same subject taken on the same film with the two cameras, I will say no more. This really isn't important to me anyway.

Rollei 'mechanicals' are very reliable. Unlike the electronic kiddy toys being sold nowadays, they go on shooting forever and then some. While film is being manufactured, the Rolleis will go on delivering the goods. Servicing is easy, if not exactly cheap, but then what camera can be professionally serviced cheaply nowadays?

The Rollei meters after they become "deceased" can easily be disconnected by opening up the top panel (the name plate) and disconnecting a linking wire. These meters always erred on the side of overexposure in bright sun or underexposure at all other times, so they were never reliable for precise shooting anyway. Almost every Rollei owner I know has a Gossen meter, which says it all...

Rolleis are the ideal minimalist camera but shooting with a TLR is an entirely different experience from using most other formats. My T images are sharper and enlarge better than most of my 35mm shots but the differnce between a 645 image taken with a T and a full size 6x6 image from a 3.5 or 2.8 with either the Planar or the Xenotar lens, is phenomenal. Not to say the latter two lenses are far better than the T's Tessar (well, they are, but the difference is not wildly critical), but most users I know say they like the T for its "character" while the Planar and Xenotar blow everything else out of the water for sharpness and mid tones. So this is all a matter of preference, really - and budget.

Any Rollei ('flex or 'cord) in good operating condition, will produce superb results. This to me is the sweetest icing on the cake.

Also let us not decry the humble Yashica TLR. I did my first shooting for five years with a D, and most of my negatives, even when processed in the horrible Kodak DK60a we all used at the time, are still eminently printable. (Whether they are good or not, isn't really the point.)

They who have a Yashica hold a powerful MF tool in their hands. Almost as good as a Rollei, far better than almost every other TLRs of that era. Great chick magnets . Be sure to shoot everything at f/11 or f/16...

cliveh said:

Is the 2.8 the fastest lens used on this camera?

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the one on the Hassy went a lot faster on its trip to the moon.

I rather have half the weight and use a Hasselblad. Hasselblad never had to build a TLR.